Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Darth]

First, you are splitting hairs w sacrifice and killing. All I was saying is God ordered Abraham to end Issac's life and to do so by burning him to death after slitting his throat. This I have proven showing you the ancient Hebrew words used.

Second, this is one of many scholarly works showing the redaction of Genesis. To say the Bible (new and old) was redacted is not even up for debate in scholarly circles; it's as close to know fact as we can get. You pervert the text form the initial reading to make it fit what you want. Case in point, I bet you have some astounding mental gymnastics to show how the earth is not 6k years old as it is stated through the genealogy of Jesus and in the OT. Or how genetics shows the impossibility of all humans being descended from one man/woman combo. Or how the myth of the flood was co-opted form the more ancient tales of Gilgamesh.

Your "scholarly" sources are inherently flawed as any scholarly works must be falsifiable, meaning if you begin w an idea of what is correct and work to prove it so, you will always find a way to make any evidence fit. This is the error you are committing yourself, too. You must have the flexibility to go wherever the facts take you and not start w the answer and work your way back. Show me one piece of evidence which meets this burden.

Lastly, saying Kierkegaard was not a theologian is flat wrong. Also, he wasn't an existentialist. Existentialism grew out of his work. He was a Job-like theologian who believed the church was crumbling under the Enlightenment rationality of Christians like Kant. He was proven correct. Christianity has been dead in the West prior to Nietzsche broadcasting it for the world to hear.

All the churches still active today are the whited sepulchers of god; practicing any of the monotheistic religions of Abraham is to do a reenactment, to practice a shadow form of Christianity. Science and Darwinism has shown we are not part of the divine and we are simply animals. Kierkegaard wanted to push Christians away from needing reason and rationality bc he saw (even prior to Nietzsche) that this was a trap and the more reason and rationality and logic Christians searched for, the more it would chip away at their faith. Everything you have provided w sources is tainted by the fact they had an agenda to prove the Bible correct. Kierkegaard knew this would be an impossible hurdle for Christians to overcome and urged his countrymen to adopt a Jobian like "faith alone." As Martian Luther said "pluck out the eyes of your reason." bc he understood too, that Christianity cannot stand up reasonably against natural reason, science, empiricism, and logic.

[jimwalton]

> First, you are splitting hairs w sacrifice and killing

The main thing I have made clear, that you refuse to see, is that Abraham would never have understood God's command as a command to kill his son. (1) He was reassured of the covenant and the continuation of his son (v. 2); (2) Killing older children was NEVER done as a child sacrifice; (3) The place he was to take Isaac was called "Provision," so Abe had an expectation of provision—a substitute; (4) child sacrifice in the ancient world was about fertility or protection. Abraham would not have perceived God's command as one to kill his son... And on and on it goes. I don't have to split hairs about terms. Abraham, in every sense, would have known this was not about killing his son.

> many scholarly works showing the redaction of Genesis

You've given me a one-page excerpt that doesn't lead me very far. He rejects the Wellhausen JEDP theory (which I also do). He doesn't show the chronological development of the text and that Gn. 22 changed through the eras. I have seen no evidence that Gn. 22 changes in a literary development across the ages.

> You pervert the text form the initial reading to make it fit what you want.

Proof? I've perverted no text from the original reading.

> Case in point, I bet you have some astounding mental gymnastics to show how the earth is not 6k years old as it is stated through the genealogy of Jesus and in the OT

Neither the OT or Jesus geneaologies show the Earth to be 6K yrs old. The archaeological record is firm, as is the bibical record, that genealogies are telescoped and never complete. There is no effort to include every generation. This is solid stuff and doesn't even take much observation to see it's true. No gymnastics are necessary.

> You must have the flexibility to go wherever the facts take you and not start w the answer and work your way back.

I agree. We must always follow the evidence and the facts. When I was studying Genesis 22, i assumed it was about child sacrifice. Worthy research took me to a different conclusion. Always follow the evidence and facts.

> All the churches still active today are the whited sepulchers of god ... Christianity cannot stand up reasonably against natural reason, science, empiricism, and logic.

Just for the record, I disagree with just about everything you said in this paragraph. I'd have to write a book to point out all of the falsities.